(Critiques of the distant future, please consider the date of publication 😅)
The Promise (and Pitfalls) of AI-Generated Code
AI coding assistants like Cursor and Claude have been game-changers for developer productivity. They can scaffold entire applications, debug tricky issues, and even explain complex concepts in seconds. But can they fully replace software engineers?
Not yet—and here’s a funny (and frustrating) example of why.
The Case of the Broken Countdown Timer
I recently asked Cursor to generate a Next.js landing page with a countdown timer to my product launch. It did most of the work well—the UI looked great, the logic seemed sound, but when I tested it… the timer was stuck.
I alerted the AI, but instead of fixing the issue, it just:
- Repeated the same code
- Gave me a generic checklist (e.g., "Check if the date is correct")
- Missed the glaring problem
Next, I pasted the code into Claude. It thought it was a hydration issue (a reasonable guess in Next.js) and tweaked the code—but the timer still didn’t work.
The Obvious Bug AI Missed
After some manual debugging (thankfully, I know JavaScript), I spotted the issue:
function getTimeLeft() {
const launchDate = new Date(); // 🚨 Problem: This resets EVERY render!
launchDate.setDate(launchDate.getDate() + 35); // 5 weeks from today
const now = new Date();
const diff = launchDate.getTime() - now.getTime();
// ... rest of the logic
}
The bug? launchDate
was being recalculated on every render, meaning the countdown always showed 0
(since now
and launchDate
were effectively the same time).
The fix? **Make launchDate
a static field (From what future date are we counting down?):
const LAUNCH_DATE = new Date("2025-06-01");
function getTimeLeft() {
const now = new Date();
const diff = LAUNCH_DATE.getTime() - now.getTime();
// ... rest of the logic
}
Why AI Still Needs Human Oversight
-
AI Lacks Deep Context
- It didn’t realize
launchDate
should be static. - It followed patterns but didn’t understand the intent.
- It didn’t realize
-
Debugging Requires Reasoning, Not Just Repetition
- Both assistants gave plausible suggestions but didn’t diagnose the root cause.
-
Trivial Mistakes Are Hard for AI to Spot
- Humans recognize "obvious" errors faster because we think in terms of goals, not just syntax.
The Verdict: AI is a Powerful Assistant, Not a Replacement
AI has made incredible progress, but it still:
✔ Struggles with nuanced logic
✔ Misses simple but critical bugs
✔ Needs human guidance for real-world scenarios
So, developers, rest easy, your job is safe (for now). AI is a tool, not a replacement. And honestly? That’s a good thing.
Top comments (0)